Paltalk Critics A - M

Palttalk.com is a voice-based chat room system that I frequent. There are many categories of discussion and I hang out in the Christianity section. I go there in order to dialogue with various people on a host of topics so that I might keep myself sharp. There are often people who attack me and in order to provide a generic defense of my position in my character, I tend to keep some records. Hence, these pages dealing with pal talk (See also Paltalk Critics N - Z).

I go by the names "Matt Slick; MattSlick, and MattSlick_of_CARM". Any other combination of my name is not me and is an imposter (which has happened numerous times).

Following are some of the people I've encountered on Paltalk, who have said some pretty negative things about me.

Alone_Ranger3

10/15/11 he typed into the Reformed and Biblical room, "He didn't bare the sins of any He was the means to get back to the tree of live."

I responded by citing 1 Pet. 2:24, "And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."

He refused to address the verse and continued to post the same sentence.

Angelic Earthling - Not sure what she is. Somewhat of a mix between JW's, Judaism, and whatever?

Two wills were there, one of Jesus, one of God. Jesus had a separate will than God; therefore, Jesus isn't God.

This demonstrates that Angelic Earthling does not understand the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union. The Trinity states that there is one God in three persons. It states that each person is not the other, yet they all three comprise the one God. The Hypostatic Union is the doctrine that Jesus is the Word which was with God and was God, was made flesh and dwelt among us, (John 1:1,14). Jesus is one person with two natures. Therefore, Jesus, as a man, would have a will separate from the Father because the Father and the Son are not the same persons. Persons have wills. Furthermore, there is no logical necessity that prevents Jesus from being both divine and human at the same time.

Bondage of will

Bondage of will is a frequent paltalk visitor who is a calvinist. He repeatedly condemns non-calvinists.

3/4/2012 - Bondage was stating that if someone does not affirm limited atonement, then he is preaching a false gospel and is damned. I repeatedly asked him to show me that from scripture. He tried by going to Matt. 1:21 (Jesus will save his people from their sins), but the verse does not support his assertion. He said accused those who don't affirm Limited Atonement of preaching a false gospel. I asked him to define the gospel and he failed to go to 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Instead, to the best of my recollection, he quoted several verses trying to make his case.

CarpentersHelper

CarpentersHelper is a rabid anti-calvinist who calls it a heresy. Many of the reformed people on PT have tried to talk to him, but to no avail.

On 2012/01/22 CarpentersHelper came into the room "War of minds Christianity vs. the world". Our encounter did not go well. He said something about a debate set up for the following Tuesday (two days hence). I responded that I did not know about this. He said that I had challenged him to a debate. Yes, I had. I don't even remember who I said it to. Anyway, he came into the room telling me that the debate topic had been decided -- something to do with the topic of regeneration preceding faith or vice versa. I told him that I did not know that this was a debate topic and that furthermore, we were supposed to agree on a topic if we were going to debate. He then said that this was like a duel where the one challenged was allowed to pick the weapons and that since I challenged him, he could pick whatever topic he wanted. Really? Perhaps this is how things were done in and the 1700's, but as far as I am aware, the debaters need to agree on the topic. I told him that for the past two or three years I've mentioned on pal talk that I have a logistical problem with the two positions of regeneration preceding faith and faith preceding regeneration. I explained that if regeneration precedes faith, then we have a regenerate person who is, for a time, not a believer. Likewise, if faith procedes regeneration, then we'd have a believer who's not regenerate - for a time. I find those to be difficult logistically. In fact, I told him that I have been stating my view of this logistical problem on paltalk for two or three years. I then challenged him to debate the reformed doctrine of total depravity and or limited atonement. He refused to acknowledge my challenge and instead continued on this bit about faith preceding regeneration and that I was unwilling to debate him. What I find interesting is that I have several times on pal talk stated that I would debate him and that my terms were simple: a mutually agreed upon room, mutually agreed upon moderator, and mutually agreed upon topic. Somehow, this never got back to him. Apparently only the part about I challenged him which means that he could then, according to his understanding debate, pick whatever topic he wanted to debate. Anyway, after two or three years of me stating that have a problem with both regeneration preceding faith and faith preceding regeneration, I can only conclude that he's heard me say this and, this is just my opinion, that this is why he wanted to debate me on that topic knowing that I wouldn't agree. Finally, I forgot exactly what prompted him to say that I was dishonest, but I remember close to when I said I had not received any e-mails stating a debate between he and myself was set for Tuesday -- which he said was the case (really? I had no clue about this since I never agreed to it). Furthermore, though I had a text message from someone on paltalk about some verses from him, I did not know that these were particular verses he wanted to have "a debate" on, nor did I know he had any interest in debating me. I believe that that is when he said I was dishonest. (He apparently always assumes the worst about any Calvinist) He then got on the mic, said how could I not have a position on regeneration and promptly left. Unfortunately for him, I do have a position on regeneration. Regeneration is biblical, is part of God's work in us, as promised by God. The issue is not if either position on regeneration, the issue is whether or not it precedes faith or not. Carpenters helper did not represent my position properly in his complaint and then left before I was able to correct his mistake. Of course, this will expect. Furthermore, I expect his followers to twist the facts and stay that I chickened out of a debate with him. However, how you chickened out of the debate you didn't know you're going to have?

2/21/12?

Yet another encounter where I was accused by him of various forms of incompetence. Nevertheless, he tried to assert that I had conceded our "debate" on regeneration preceding faith (though I had not). After a while, he finally agreed to debate me on a set of scriptures of my choosing that would support any of the Five Points of Calvinism. I agreed and told him I would think about it and get back to him.

3/6/2012 - I've been hoping to meet Carpentershelper online now for about a week and a half so that I can confirm our "debate" encounter with the scriptures I want to focus on. I have not heard from him.

DaMountainMan is a person who claims to affirm to the essentials of the Christian faith and then some. He has repeatedly said that I am not a Christian because when I was first saved, I was not made aware of Christ's physical resurrection until about two years later and when I was taught the truth I believed it immediately. I had stated this to people in a room and he and others said I wasn't saved -- though others said I was.

5/30/10 - Yet another encounter with him who again said I was not saved. He stated that unless I knew of the physical resurrection of Christ, then I could not have been saved. To the best of my recollection, back at the onset of the conversation that caused all this problem, I never denied Christ's physical resurrection, just didn't know of it. I knew he was alive, but not exactly how. He said I wasn't saved. He also said that believing in eternal hell was an essential doctrine. So, I pasted the following into the chat room: "DMM, Please answer these questions: I asked you to tell me why I am not a Christian if I affirm the essentials of the Christian faith? Where does the bible say that belief in a literal burning hell is an essential?" He didn't answer. He also said that I would have to believe in the true Jesus who died, was buried, and was physically resurrected from the dead. I said, I believed it and more including the trinity, Jesus is still human and divine, he is our priest, that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone. I asked him if I was saved since I affirm what he said I need to believe. Yet, he wouldn't answer.

11/13/11, "According to Matt, any old jesus and any old gospel, and any old god will do." DMM continues to misrepresent me and others.

3/4/12, He stated that Limited Atonement is the gospel and that it was necessary to affirm to be a Christian. He was quite condemning. I asked him if limited atonement is necessary to properly preach the gospel, then please show it systematically from the Bible. I asked him to show a verse that states limited atonement is true and also that such teaching is part of the proper preaching. He could not do it. He statement all must hear the preaching of the proper gospel including Limited Atonement. I then asked, "DAM... question for you... do aborted babies all go to hell since they have not heard the preaching of the gospel?" He said he wouldn't play stupid word games with me.

Dave3B - Jehovah's Witness

Confusion by esoteric terminology

Dave likes to quote scholars and to cite grammatical comments and rules relative to particular parts of various verses. There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. However, when offering "facts" from scholars, he expects people to refute quickly what he has obviously spent a lot of time studying. Additionally, the details of what he offers are often quite esoteric. Here is a made-up (not necessarily scholarly accurate) example of the type of thing that Dave3B will say to try and win a point: "The Genitive-absolute is never used in the passive sense in a predicate nominative structure. This means that grammatically, you can't have the antecedent structure remain in the same sense as the dative-of-means! Therefore, the verse cannot mean that Jesus is God." You see how confusing such a statement can be? How do you refute something like that when you can't even understand what it means? Dave seems to study these points at length, learn them, and then blast them out on paltalk in arguments and then ask a person to prove him wrong... on the spot. Is that fair? Nope. Furthermore, he seems to even quote scholars who are Trinitarian and believe in the deity of Christ in order to disprove the deity of Christ. It seems to me that Dave3B is missing something if the scholars he quotes to refute the Trinity and deity of Christ are the same ones who believe in the Trinity and the deity of Christ.

Dawgma

I assume this person is an atheist. He will not answer any questions about himself. He will not reveal if he is atheist, agnostic, pantheist, etc. When I ask him what he is, he always refuses to answer and asks questions instead, often making a challenge to me to answer something first. His questions are often illogical. I don't engage him much anymore since he seems to want to hide and it isn't worth discussing with someone who hides his own views.

Eschatology 101

July 5, 2010

Eschatology 101 was an admin in a room "Full Preterism Challenges and Debates Central". I asked him about Acts 1:11 and he provided an answer. It wasn't very good, but one thing led to another and he denied that Jesus was a man right now. I showed him Col. 2:9 and 1 Tim. 2:5 which says Jesus is in bodily form and a man. He denied Jesus was a man. I asked when did Jesus stop being a man and he said when his blood was drained out of his body. I then asked if Jesus was a man in his resurrected body and he wouldn't affirm or deny it. He only said, "The same body that died was the same body was resurrected." Of course, wanting to know what he meant by that, I kept asking him to affirm or deny it. He would do neither. I asked about his humanity as a resurrected man. I posted this in the room, "If you say that humanity ceases when the blood is gone, then Jesus when he was resurrected... without blood... could not have been human." He would not answer me, so I simply left.

ghclark

I believe that ghclark is a Christian. He has something against me, though I don't know what it is. He has called me a liar, a scoundrel, and a wolf and said that I know that I am. When I ask him what lie I am guilty of, he won't tell me. He also says that I falsely claim to be what I am not. When I ask him what I falsely claim to be, he doesn't answer.

We had a private conversation on Paltalk on 10/30/11 which he said I could make public. I was trying to find out what he is accusing me of. When I told him that he publically accused a minister of the gospel of being a liar he says that I am a minister of nothing. My motivation was to get him to back up his accusation. Instead of answering, he told me to repent. When I asked him what I am to repent of, he said, "Pride and lies." I told him that I repent of pride regularly and fail in that area. When I asked what lies, he said, "You are not what you claim to be, namely a teacher of scripture. That is how you lie Matt, by false representation." I responded with "Okay...and exactly what is it that I am teaching that is false????????" He wouldn't talk for a while, but then continued to accuse. Here's part of the text. (If you want the whole text, unedited, raw, go here)Matt Slick: well... you have accused a minister of sin publically. You've refused to demonstrate your accusation. You've refused to show the accusation to be true. You've got no 2nd witness to validate it. I've politely and repeatedly asked you to be specific and you've refused. So, I will conclude that according to scripture, you are in rebellion and sin.ghclark: Well Matt that is your little false game you playMatt Slick: it is not a game.Matt Slick: it is you who is playing with truth and making unsubstantiated accusationsghclark: and when you tell people what i have said i fully expect you to lie Matt Slick: i can only conclude that you are in rebellion against God's wordghclark: because that is what you doMatt Slick: and continue to accuse falselyghclark: conclude what you will matt what difference does it make to me ghclark: have fun with you usual smear campaign but you'll still be a liar when you are finished even more so

12/8/11 He called me a wolf again, said I don't stand on scripture, don't rely on scripture, that I undermine God's scripture by defending it and using evidence, that I don't have a christian philosophy of scripture, that I don't believe the bible is sufficient, and that I should stop defending God's word. He said that defending scripture is wrong and that to do so means I am not a calvinist. I challenged him on all of this (after he finally admitted what the so-called problem was) and then he went silent and wouldn't respond. Someone else in the room, Limey Bob, also heard him call me a wolf and took ghclark to task on this. ghclark refused to respond. He just remained silent. So, I took the opportunity to defend my position, to state that Jesus used evidence when speaking with Thomas in John 20:25-28 (the evidence of his crucifixion wounds in light of his resurrection), the reasoning that Paul practiced in Acts 17:17 (I mentioned the Greek word "dialogomai"), and how Jesus corrected the presuppositions of the woman at the well in John 4. During his silence I asked him (and others in the room) if when someone asked me to give a 'reason for the hope of the faith that lies within me' (1 Pet. 3:15), if that meant I was not to defend God's word as being God's word (since he had stated that defending it was wrong). He just remained silent.

Jeff5

Jeff5, claims to be an atheist, but won't tell us much more than that. If I offer a reason for God's existence, he attacks it. Yet, he claims he "...disbelieves in God" and ... "lacks belief in God". When asked if he's a materialist he won't say yes or no. If asked if he's a physicalist he won't so yes or no. Apparently he doesn't want to disclose anything lest we find problems with it. In my opinion, this is a demonstration of the bankruptcy of his atheism.

JesusH8sEvolution

See Rapture Ready Maranatha, paragraph 2... It was him using another nickname, which he admitted.

Lifesharer

Lifesharer hates calvinism, likes to post things, and then run away before allowing anyone to respond to him. Consider the following hit-and-run-post: "matt slick is a calvinist cultist teaching another gospel and a heresy. Learn your doctrine and stop fellowshipping with the DEvils henchmen" (10/26/11). Anyway, generally he doesn't stick around for real dialogue. But, on the rare occasion that he does dialogue, he doesn't listen to what is said in defense of calvinism and continues to misrepresent it. Then he boasts that Calvinists don't know what they are talking about, misrepresent Scripture, and claims victory.

Living_faith

This person is a rabid anti calvinist who teaches you can loose your salvation and that once saved always saved is a false doctrine.

"If Calvinism is the gospel or supported the gospel, then it's followers could correctly call themselves Christians, but because it DENIES the gospel, then it's ANOTHER Gospel."

When asked if we must keep the commandments of God to be saved? He answered, "Yes, you must." I then asked, "Okay, then may I ask which commandments we must keep in order to become saved?" He answerd, "All of them." I then asked, "Living faith, are you keeping all the commandments?" He says, "I strive." I then asked, "Living, excuse me, but if you are striving, that means you are not keeping them all. Then doesn't that mean you are not saved?" He said, "Why not let God judge?" I then asked, "But living, if you must keep all the commandments to be saved, and you are not keeping them, then doesn't that mean you aren't saved?" He replied, "Rahab lied to hide the spies, did she perish for lying?" I then said, Living, are you saying it was okay for Rahab to lie? After all, if she did and she didn't go to hell, then she stayed saved without keeping the commandments." He said, "That's right." I then replied, "But isn't that a contradiction? You said you must keep the commandments and yet she did not and she is saved. So which is it? Must we keep the commandments to be saved or not?" He then said I need to "go search out the book of the Lord and read." I then i asked, "Living, are we justified by faith or by keeping the commandments?" He then put me on ignore.

5/23/10, I went into a paltalk room where Living_Faith was an admin. Immediately he said that I believed in a false gospel and told everyone in the room that Calvinism is "another gospel". I didn't even say anything to bring this on. He just started attacking me. He said that I said he was wacked because he didn't believe in eternal security. I said I don't say that about people if they don't believe in eternal security. He then said that Calvinists blame God for all the evil in the world. I typed in that we do not do that and that he was misrepresenting Calvinism. So, he accused me of believing in a false gospel again and I then typed into the room that I affirm the Trinity, the deity of Christ, his physical resurrection, justification by grace through faith alone in Christ alone -- and then he (I assume it was him), banned me from the room. So, Living Faith misrepresented me, misrepresented Calvinism, falsely accused me, and then banned me from his room. Amazing. What is he so upset about?

I don't know why this guy appears to dislike me so much, but he appears to automatically disagree with everything I say. For example, when I was speaking in a particular room about our need to follow Christ and to emulate him, how Christ showed love and how he passed judgment by doing such things as cleansing the temple and calling people hypocrites, mlduck then said, "matt if we are taught to emulate Christ should we start by creating all things or dying for sins that we didnt commit or should we just start at the name calling part." Wow... Such things like this are enlightening. Here are some other things he's said.